According to Climate Energy Finance (CEF): "In the first half of 2025, new wind and solar power capacity additions in China were 10 times more than thermal capacity and made up 90% of new adds. Renewables are playing a key role in decarbonising power generation."

"While thermal power—predominantly coal—still accounted for over 60% of electricity output, its share continues to decline as clean energy capacity scales up, even as China’s economy continues to grow very strongly, lifting overall energy demand growth."

So often we have commentators using China's massive use of thermal energy for electricity generation as a rebuttal to reasons to move towards renewables.
But: "Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell to a record low of 46% with thermal generation."

The whole world is moving to renewables and CEF comments that to "realise our renewable energy potential, we need urgent reform. If we don’t, Australia risks becoming the Kodak economy of the future."

Deniers love to point to China’s coal use as if it means renewables aren’t worth pursuing, but this data blows that out of the water.

Yes, coal is still a big slice of China’s generation, but it’s shrinking.

And the really telling stat is the utilisation rate of thermal power plants dropping to a record low. That’s a sign they’re being sidelined more often as wind and solar take over the hours when they’re cheapest.

Meanwhile, China is adding more renewable capacity in six months than Australia has installed in its entire history.

If we’re still debating whether renewables are “worth it” while other nations are scaling at breakneck speed, we’re not just behind - we’re setting ourselves up to be irrelevant.

The name Blockbuster comes to mind. In which case, a “Kodak economy” would be something we’d be aspiring to.

This "data" has either been cherrypicked, or is not correct. This graph from Our World in Data puts the lie to it https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN. The contribution of wind and solar is miniscule, and oil, coal and gas are all ramping up at an extraordinary rate.

From this graph China is obviously not going to be contributing to NetZero anytime in the next 100 years or more.

Dear Oh Dear Graham, this does not even warrant a WTF?

Maybe you would prefer some data from the US Energy Information Administration. Their data lags so their most recent information is for 2023.


Let's give it a shot: China's generation of electricity from fossil fuels from 2019 - 2023 went from 1,191 million KW to 1,390 an increase of 16.7%.

Not really the "ramping up" of thermal fuels that Graham suggests.

In the same time renewables went from 759 million KW to 1,454 an increase of 92%.

There is nothing miniscule about this. China is on target to install half of expected global solar installations this year.

So this US source agrees with the CEF source - Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell - to a record low of 46% according to CEF.

The CEF report did not make any assertions about Net Zero. However, on 9 July, Chief Executive of the Smart Energy Council, John Grimes stated that Zero emissions capacity delivered over 40% of China’s electricity.

Somehow I think the rapid and relentless march towards renewables has caught many off guard.

Graham,

That chart shows all energy use, not just electricity, so of course coal looks huge. It includes industrial uses like steel and cement production, chemicals, and district heating.

Sectors where renewables aren’t yet dominant.

Regardless, the rate of change is visible - which makes it even more telling that you’ve chosen to focus on totals instead. It doesn’t contradict the current trend - it hides it behind unrelated legacy energy uses and a misleading y-axis scale.

It’s like measuring the rise of streaming by pointing at how many VHS tapes still exist.

Now THAT is cherry-picking.

Nice graph GY. Kudos. It might be interesting to compare the similar graphs for Western and European nations. I think what GY is implying is that the point of the targets is to increase the renewables in proportion to total use. It appears that China's total energy use is on an exponential curve over time. That's not to say that other nations aren't also on an exponential curve but it's something to look at. And it's not to say that good equals renewables.

Canem Malum,

Apparently the graph was confusing for you, too.

Kudos.

China is heading towards becoming the worlds largest economy by 2026/30, partly due to its energy policy of increased use of renewals, supplemented by a decreasing demand for fossil fuels. The Americans under Trump with his mad economic policies, and his misled belief that America should rely on expensive coal and gas, and ditch renewables, will only accelerate China's economic dominance. News for Trump 145% tariffs ain't going to do it for ya sunshine!

Liberal-aligned The Australian Institute for (No)Progress ran anti-Greens ads dressed up as unbiased opinion during the recent Federal election, after it received a $600,000 pay cheque from the Queensland coal industry. Its amazing how money shapes ones opinion.

Thanks Graham for exposing another liar and anti-everything misfit. Thanks CM.

Why is China installing so much wind and solar? In a word, overcapacity. Much of the wind and solar that China has built does not have the transmission infrastructure to connect it to the grid. Maybe China is installing so much because the rest of the world is starting to wise up to the shortcomings?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/08/06/chinas-record-renewables-build-out-wastes-power-as-grid-lags-00493788

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chinas-renewable-capacity-soars-utilisation-lags-data-show-2025-08-05/

Production line nuclear still a work in progress, so we will have to endure the wind and solar grid fantasists for a few more years.

Paul,

I live in one of the electorates in which the AIP's anti-Greens flyers were distributed. The campaign went down like a lead balloon here.

From what I could tell, the general feeling was one of disgust.
___

ttbn,

Could you please point to the lies have have been exposed?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif
___

Fester,

Curtailment’s a growing pain, not a death knell. Nationally it’s under 7%, zero in big cities, and China’s already spending billions on transmission and storage to fix it. That’s what “too much clean power” looks like, and it’s a problem every country should be so lucky to have.

So here's the graph of just electricity. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~CHN

Same story. Hard to discern a slow down.

There is currently 484 GW of coal planned or under construction in China, 1810 of wind and solar, about 43 of nuclear, 154 natural gas. That makes 1810 of wind and solar to 781 fossil fuel + nuclear. However, the capacity factor of wind and solar is around 30% while for the others 85% or higher, so there is actually more production to come from other sources than from wind and solar.

This begs the question - if wind and solar are the cheapest, why are they building so much fossil fuel and nuclear? Answer - because it isn't the cheapest once you take system costs, capacity utilisation and reliability into account.

Graham,

Thanks for posting the electricity-only chart, it makes the trend even clearer. Coal is flatlining, hydro and nuclear are steady, and wind and solar have been climbing like a rocket for over a decade.

Your “capacity factor” line is sleight of hand.

Wind and solar are variable, yes, but they’re far faster and cheaper to deploy, and China is adding them at several times the scale of any other source. That’s exactly how you transition off high-capacity-factor fossil fuels: you build the clean fleet until it dwarfs the dirty one.

And “if they’re the cheapest, why build fossil and nuclear?”

Because no modern grid bets everything on one source. Reliability and diversification aren’t proof renewables don’t work, they’re why you plan the phase-out instead of tripping the breaker on day one.

The chart does indeed back the “same story,” just not the one you're thinking of.

Graham,
In your first response you used the term "lie".

ttbn refers to (I assume) me as the O.P., as a liar but does not articulate where the lies are.

Now that you have stated "That makes 1810 of wind and solar to 781 fossil fuel + nuclear." Convenient that you have included nuclear in with thermal generation. I would like to know what the lie is.

Did I lie? Well no, I used direct quotes form a source.
Did the source lie? I doubt it and you have not challenged their data collection method or their data directly. I then used a different source that showed similar data.

You now seem to agree with the CEF claim that "Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell."

So the matter of what is the lie and who is who is the liar remain unanswered. That's pretty strong terminology and needs to backed up with very compelling evidence - even on a site where most of us use aliases.

No honest person with common sense believes that wind and solar is cheap. The notion that it is represents a bigger lie than the climate "emergency" itself. Net Zero is dog of an idea anywhere now except Australia, where it is not realised that emissions are still rising in the rest of the world, and Australia's buggering up of its own economy is not going to change anything.

In the meantime, Communist China is thriving because of the Australian political class's stupidity, and the Left's increasing intent on making CCP our master.

End of story. End of Australia coming shortly.

ttbn,

Wind and solar are indeed the cheapest new sources of electricity in most of the world, including China and Australia.

Lazard’s latest report puts new utility-scale solar at $24-$96/MWh and wind at $24-$75/MWh, compared to new coal at $66-$152/MWh and gas at $39-$101/MWh, and that’s before factoring in carbon pricing or health costs from pollution.

http://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus
http://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023

The claim that “Net Zero is dead” is contradicted by actual deployment data:

- China added over 217 GW of wind and solar in 2023 alone (more than the entire installed solar capacity of the United States.)

- Global renewable capacity additions grew 50% in 2023 (the fastest growth rate in two decades.)

- The IEA projects renewables will account for over 90% of new global power capacity through 2028. IEA Renewables 2023

http://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023

As for “emissions still rising,” yes, globally they are, but the biggest driver is coal in developing economies, which is precisely why the scale and speed of China’s renewables build-out matters. Every GW of clean capacity added now is a GW not burning fossil fuels for decades.

So, if your argument is that wind and solar are “not cheap” and “not working,” please provide your figures, your methodology, and your sources. Because the world’s leading energy agencies, market analysts, and deployment data all say otherwise.

Over to you...

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

Once again the foolishness of Australian voters can't be ignored.

They know that their electricity bills are soaring, but they still re-elected the lying bastards who said renewable energy was the cheapest; senses partly dulled by the idea that governments would continue giving them back their own money in cost of living relief payments - that will last how long with a socialist mob flinging other people's money around, willy nilly?

Even the #metoo Liberals baulk at the cost of Australian electricity.

If John O'Grady wrote ‘They're a Weird Mob’ on behalf of the fictional Italian immigrant Nino Culotta now instead of 1957, he would probably call it ‘They're a Stupid Mob’.

WTF?

ttbn states: "They know that their electricity bills are soaring."

I'll assume this statement is true. My own electricity use is heavy subsidised by my own solar panels but I am aware of increases that took place on 1st July.

But what is causing this increase? Let's look at some historical wholesale prices. In QLD the wholesale price peaked at just less than $350 per MWh in the second quarter of 2002. In the second quarter of 2025 the cost was just less than $150 per MWh.

This is a decrease in cost of around 43% and, while the price fluctuates, has averaged around this price since the fourth quarter of 2022.

At the moment in QLD the spot price is -$13. The energy companies are essentially been paid to supply electricity.

Don't blame renewables - they are responsible for the wholesale price drop.

Where I live there is only one provider. No "invisible hand of the market" here.

Please excuse my Maths - In my post above it should read a decrease of 57%

wtf

You can find the average price since 2009-2010 on the AEMO website.

https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

The experience of renewables is one of rising electricity costs for consumers.

John,

"That’s what “too much clean power” looks like, and it’s a problem every country should be so lucky to have."

No, the Chinese curtailment was because there were no transmission lines to take the power to where it was needed, not because the power wasn't needed. In any event, curtailed power is wasted power, in theory about a third of generated energy is wasted in a stand alone wind and solar system. Waste like that is nothing to crow about, especially as nuclear power, with less curtailment, generates cheaper energy over its lifetime.

Fester

Of course I know about the AEMO site - that's where the spot price is found.

I also know from AEMO documents that the 2024 estimated levelised costs of electricity is $102 per MWh for coal, $70 per MWh for wind and $43 for solar.

Renewables are clearly less expensive than coal generation. The source you suggest to look up clearly states that.

Fester,

You’ve just confirmed it - the issue wasn’t lack of demand, it was transmission bottlenecks. That’s a grid upgrade problem, not a failure of renewables.

And no source runs 100% of the time - coal, gas, and nuclear all get curtailed too. The difference is China’s already building 30,000 km of new ultra-high-voltage lines to fix it, and the wind/solar capacity will keep cranking for decades once connected.

Got Chinese cost data showing nuclear beats wind/solar today? Lazard and the IEA say otherwise.

And as WTF has pointed out, that AEMO link doesn’t show what you’re claiming.

Their own Quarterly Energy Dynamics reports show wholesale prices spiked during the 2022 gas crisis, then fell sharply in 2023-24 as renewables’ share grew. Retail bills are driven by far more than the generation mix - network costs, retailer margins, and global fuel prices all hit long before renewables ever could.

If you’ve got AEMO data isolating renewables as the driver of higher prices, post it. Otherwise, that’s just correlation dressed up as causation.

The table I linked showed the average electricity prices since 2009. The recent spike was due to the natural gas price spike associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I think that coal was less influential because of long term supply contracts.

wtf's "black is really white" claim about the AEMO link is countered by John's "correlation is not causation" non sequitur. The idea that calculating the cost of energy is a statistical exercise is ludicrous. Calculating the cost of energy is an accounting exercise. It is not a complex and uncertain task undertaken by statisticians and medical researchers. It is true that future costs are never certain, but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise.

Perhaps John and wtf could treat olo as a place to share and learn? For all their contributions they never seem to learn a thing.

You seem horribly confused, Fester.

//The table I linked showed the average electricity prices since 2009.//

Correct.

Which means it shows correlation at best, not causation. You cited it immediately after claiming “the experience of renewables is one of rising electricity costs for consumers,” so if you weren’t implying causation, then your original point collapses. If you were, then my “correlation is not causation” point stands.

You can’t have it both ways.

//The recent spike was due to the natural gas price spike associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.//

Exactly.

Which directly undermines the idea that renewables were the driver. That’s why AEMO’s reports explicitly attribute the spike to gas prices and the subsequent fall to increasing renewable generation.

//I think that coal was less influential because of long term supply contracts.//

Possibly. But that’s beside the point.

//wtf's 'black is really white' claim about the AEMO link is countered by John's 'correlation is not causation' non sequitur.//

That’s not a non sequitur.

It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment.

//Calculating the cost of energy is an accounting exercise.//

That’s why agencies like AEMO, the IEA, and Lazard use both accounting and statistical modelling.

//It is not a complex and uncertain task undertaken by statisticians and medical researchers. It is true that future costs are never certain, but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise.//

Precise figures don’t make for precise causes.

AEMO’s data are accurate for prices, but they still require analysis to determine why those prices moved. Without that, all you have is numbers without context, which is how false narratives about renewables driving up costs get traction.

//Perhaps John and wtf could treat olo as a place to share and learn? For all their contributions they never seem to learn a thing.//

I’m happy to share and learn, but that requires dealing in accurate cause-and-effect, not conflating price movements with whichever technology one happens to dislike.

John,

As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters. All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked. Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/the-csiro-report-that-proves-coal-is-cheaper-than-renewables-zoe-hilton/

"It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment."

Doubling down on your dishonesty as usual. All the information is in the historical data. The information is precise and there is no need for statistical analysis. Yes, statistics are used in modelling and forecasting, but there is no need when you are counting the historical costs. The "correlation is not causation" is just another deception you have latched on to of late. It got good use by the smoking lobby to preserve profits at the cost of human lives. You may as well lie all you want to keep help keep the scam going until the proverbial hits the fan, hopefully soon.

WTF?

Fester the very first line in the CSIRO final 2024-25 GenCost report is:
"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

The very first line.

Ad hominems only weaken your position further, Fester.

//As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters.//

Disagreeing with you isn’t “rude.” Calling me an “Albo cult member” while dodging data is, however.

//All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked.//

No contradiction exists unless you can quote where either of us said something mutually exclusive. “Correlation is not causation” doesn’t contradict “prices have moved” - it clarifies that movements don’t prove your chosen cause.

//Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.//

Your own link’s numbers show wind and solar, even when fully firmed, are already close to new black coal costs in 2024 and cheaper by 2030. The “coal is cheaper” spin comes from cherry-picking the 90% renewables scenario midpoint while ignoring the full range in the same report.

//All the information is in the historical data… no need for statistical analysis.//

Historical prices are precise; historical causes are not. The AEMO table shows numbers, not causes. That’s why causal analysis is needed, otherwise it’s like declaring “umbrellas cause rain” because they appear together in the data.

//Counting costs isn’t the dispute…//

Exactly.

The leap from “costs have risen” to “renewables caused it” ignores global fuel prices, network investments, retailer margins, and market design.

//The “correlation is not causation” is just another deception…//

That’s an association fallacy.

“It got good use by the smoking lobby” doesn’t make the phrase false. It’s a basic principle in economics, epidemiology, and physics because it’s valid logic, not PR.

//You may as well lie…//

That’s just invective.

If you have data showing renewables directly increased Australia’s electricity costs after controlling for other variables, post it.

Otherwise, all you’ve done is dress correlation up as causation and hope no one notices.

The CSIRO has been caught out again. It found that black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour, but it didn't want that known to the dopey public; nor did it want it known that the codswallop about how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future, AFTER all the massively expensive infrastructure, means of getting the power to consumers and reparations for damage done, have been paid for - by consumers, and after the economy has been rooted.

But all you folk, talking through your arses and fighting like school kids, get a life, or go back to w.nking privately.

You might want to double-check that unit, ttbn.

//black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour//

$111/kWh would make Australian electricity hundreds of times more expensive than it actually is. The CSIRO figure is $111 per MWh - a thousand times lower - and it’s right there in the report.

No “hiding” required.

//wind and solar is… only cheap way into the future AFTER infrastructure etc…//

No.

The GenCost tables already include transmission and firming in their “fully costed” scenarios. That’s why they give two figures: variable-only and fully firmed.

Even with all that included, wind and solar are competitive with new coal today and cheaper within the decade.

So no, the “dopey public” isn’t being shielded from anything. The numbers are public, you’ve just misread them.

WTF?

ttbn states: "how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future."

AEMO documents show that the 2024 estimated levelised costs of electricity is $102 per MWh for coal, $70 per MWh for wind and $43 for solar. That's last year not some point in the future.

Now AEMO uses the CSIRO calculations and the CSIRO shows a range of values while AEMO summarises this into one number.

CSIRO in their final 2024-25 GenCost report states: ""The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn seems to be getting a little emotional again. It's time to be reminded again ttbn - the facts don't care about your feelings.

Hi WTF,

You are not reading between the lines, sure the very first visible line says; "The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly." Now that's very ambiguous, if you read the invisible line it says, just the opposite. has that cleared it up for you, Fester understands it that way.

Hello Paul,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just to clear things up for the pedantic. That first line appears on the introductory webpage for the report. But the findings are repeated throughout the report so it is almost impossible not to get the message.

Now Fester would have us view the CIS analysis on the findings. Essentially a push-for-nuclear organisation.

I for one would not discount an energy future that included nuclear but that is not what this thread is about. Plenty has been said about the cost and logistics about nuclear on OLO over the last few weeks so maybe Fester could start his own thread if he is still confused.

But Fester did get this correct when he said "but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise."

And once more just in case AEMO states:"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

ttbn- "black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour"

Answer- No surprise to me. Kero and petrol (7-9 Carbon atoms per molecule) are also very efficient because of their high energy density also carbon dominant organic chemicals. Ethanol also has a relatively high energy density (2 carbon atoms per molecule) and it can be produced by plant sources. These chemicals with long carbon chains seem to be correlated with high energy density. I find myself referring to the Energy Density Table by Wikipedia a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

Diamonds appear to have an extremely high energy density due to it's packed carbon crystaline structure- not that most people would want to burn diamonds. Pure silicon having a similar allotope is probably comparable.

From Search Assist AI

Energy Density Comparison

The energy density of diamond combustion can be compared to other carbon-based materials. Here’s a table summarizing the energy density of diamond and other common fuels:
Material Energy Density (kJ/mol)
Diamond 397.3
Coal ~24.0
Gasoline ~31.5
Conditions for Burning

Ignition Temperature: Diamonds require a high ignition temperature of about 900 °C (1650 °F) to burn in air.
Pressure: The combustion occurs at atmospheric pressure.

Summary

Burning diamond is a high-energy process, releasing more energy per mole than many common fuels. However, it requires specific conditions, including high temperatures and sufficient oxygen, to initiate and sustain the combustion.

If we burned diamonds rather than coal the volume of the transport could be 10x smaller, but for a similar weight, and cheaper transport (because of wind resistance and other factors). But our engines would need to be redesigned to handle the different fuel.

Kudos Kid and ttbn

You pair are real wack jobs. the debate is over, wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy production, taking all factors into consideration, that's indisputable. All you old fossils are doing is pissing in the wind, arguing from your ideological view point, believing all this renewable nonsense is some Marxist conspiracy, when all it is, is a scientific fact.

John

"Disagreeing with you isn’t “rude.” Calling me an “Albo cult member” while dodging data is, however."

Repeatedly lying to the forum is your mo. It is rude and disrespectful, and you deserve to be called out for it.

"No contradiction exists unless you can quote where either of us said something mutually exclusive."

Um, wtf said the link showed prices falling. You repeated your "correlation is not causation" lie, acknowledging the data showed a rising price, so yes, you do contradict one another.

"That’s why causal analysis is needed"

The information can be obtained. It is an accounting exercise, not statistical inference.

"“It got good use by the smoking lobby” doesn’t make the phrase false. It’s a basic principle in economics, epidemiology, and physics because it’s valid logic, not PR."

Correlation is used to determine a relation between apparently unrelated things. For smoking and tobacco use, the challenge is to show what caused someone's disease. Determining this by medical testing is often impossible, especially with cancer, so statistical methods are needed. In contrast, determining the cost of wind and solar is a matter or doing the sums, so it is not a correlation.

You're an absolute shonk, John. It is no surprise to see you beating the drum for the wind and solar scammers.

It appears you’re getting a little too emotional now, Fester.

//Repeatedly lying to the forum is your mo. It is rude and disrespectful, and you deserve to be called out for it.//

Accusations without specifics are just noise. Quote an actual “lie” or retract it.

//Um, wtf said the link showed prices falling. You repeated your "correlation is not causation" lie, acknowledging the data showed a rising price, so yes, you do contradict one another.//

Misrepresentation.

WTF referred to prices falling in the most recent period, which is correct. I referred to your earlier claim blaming renewables for rising prices over the long term. Those are separate timeframes, not contradictory statements.

//The information can be obtained. It is an accounting exercise, not statistical inference.//

Accounting can tell you what prices were. It cannot isolate how much of that change was due to renewables versus gas spikes, network upgrades, retail margins, or other factors without further analysis. That’s the point you keep skipping.

//Correlation is used to determine a relation between apparently unrelated things… In contrast, determining the cost of wind and solar is a matter or doing the sums, so it is not a correlation.//

You’re moving the goalposts.

The dispute wasn’t about the cost of building a wind farm. It was about your claim that historical retail price movements were caused by renewables. That’s exactly where correlation without causal analysis fails.

//You're an absolute shonk, John…//

More invective.

If you’ve got credible, sourced evidence showing renewables - not global fuel prices or other factors - directly drove retail prices up in Australia, post it.

Otherwise you’re just repeating the same assertion and hoping no one notices the gap.

Yawn. Time for a new subject. Nothing has changed. The same couple of darkened bedroom dwellers saying the same things, despite the fact that whatever posters said in their first reaction to this tedious topic, will be the same in their final post, with a bit of personal abuse thrown in because nobody agrees with them.

Meanwhile, the people responsible for the sky-rocketing electricity prices and telling lies about them don't give a FF about what anonymous key-board clowns think about anything.

It's notable that high energy carbon is also high in information due to the high number of bonds per atom and for relatively low weight compared for example to silicon. DNA is the way that information is passed between generations and is based on carbon chains. Lithium batteries have a much lower energy density than carbon chains as seen by the energy density table. If diamonds were used in cars, the fuel tank could be much smaller, and cars could have less wind resistance, and less metal. Solar panels have to have extremely large surface areas and don't have storage capability. Simplicity over complexity is a well founded engineering principle.

Its the same old playbook. Pick a subset of the data that tells you the story you want to hear and then pretend that that is the whole story. We saw it also with the discussion on the relative cost of renewables where the establishment costs and the decommissioning costs are ignored and then the claim is made that renewables are cheaper even as its easily shown that the countries with the highest levels of renewables have the highest levels of electricity costs.

And so here. The whole aim (at least the stated claim) of this kabuki theatre is to reduce emissions which it is claimed renewables do. Yet here's the data.... (million tonnes of CO2 equivalent)

China emissions 2015 13118.90 .... 2023 15943.99.... 21.5% INcrease
USA emissions 2015 6329.00 ..... 2023 5960.80 .... 5.8% DEcrease

It seems that the Chinese (swoon, genuflect, all praise St XI) are claiming to be climate saviours while merrily pumping out CO2e with abandon while the US (boo, hiss) who we all know are climate vandals are reducing their emissions without the need to trumpet their renewables efforts.

Now all of this assumes that any of these numbers are valid and I find it passingly amusing that so many people treat figures from Peking as reliable. Still it all we've got.

So how to account for this divergent outcomes. Well we could start by recognising that China manufactures these renewables using coal and oil which, of coarse, we are supposed to not notice. And we could also recognise that while China claims to care about the environment, their only concern is to use western green naivety to China's benefit.

When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.

This is mere projection, mhaze.

//Its the same old playbook… renewables are cheaper even as its easily shown that the countries with the highest levels of renewables have the highest levels of electricity costs.//

You’re the one jumping between power-sector and economy-wide outcomes as it suits. Proper cost studies include capital, integration, transmission, and end-of-life. And “most renewables = highest prices” is cherry-picking - retail prices also reflect taxes, fuel import dependence, and network choices. It’s not causation.

//…here’s the data: ...//

Raw totals don’t tell the story.

China’s economy and industry grew massively in that span, so absolute emissions rose while its power sector carbon intensity fell and its clean share soared. The right comparisons are per-capita, per-GDP, or per-kWh. Using totals between such different economies is misleading.

//It seems the Chinese… claim to be climate saviours while the US reduces emissions without trumpeting renewables.//

Strawman.

No one here crowned China “saviour.” The point is simply the scale and speed of its clean build-out - wind and solar capacity rising by tens of percent annually, coal utilisation falling. That’s evidence of transition, not perfection.

//…numbers from Peking… amusing that people treat them as reliable.//

You can’t both cite Chinese figures to make your case and dismiss them as unreliable when inconvenient. Pick a standard and stick to it.

//China manufactures these renewables using coal and oil which, of course, we are supposed not to notice.//

Everyone notices it - that’s why cleaning the grid matters. Building a clean system with today’s fossil grid is temporary; once built, renewables run with negligible emissions. Transitional emissions don’t invalidate the long-term shift.

//When we see these renewables actually reduce China’s CO2e, then we’ll have something to discuss.//

They already do in the power sector.

Every MWh of wind or solar displaces fossil generation. National totals still rise because energy demand and exports are expanding, but that’s why analysts track intensity, not just raw tonnes. Judge electricity by electricity metrics - not whole-economy numbers that bundle steel, cement, transport and exports.

Ten points for effort, though.

We don't have an energy problem, we have an energy storage problem. The renewables swindle hasn't seemingly addressed this point. Most forms of energy are essentially solar energy- fissionables and heavy elements such as Uranium and Tunsten are created in supernova, all elements heavier than Hydrogen are created in main sequence stars, wind power is a form of solar energy, PV's use the light from stars, fusion power is the same energy source that stars use, hydrocarbon fuels are highly compressed organic material that grow using solar energy. If we had less people and more trees in the world there would be less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need to look at those places on Earth that have the highest population and lowest technology.

It seems the point yet again went flying over JD's head. The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions. Yet when it can be shown that supposedly renewable champion China has massively increasing emissions while supposedly renewables enemy US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.

Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.

"You can’t both cite Chinese figures to make your case and dismiss them as unreliable when inconvenient."

Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone, probably not even yourself. But not only can I, its clear its the only logical step. China's figures are numbers we have, and therefore the numbers we need to use. But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation. Of coarse those who slack-jawedly fall for every piece of CCP propaganda, won't get that.

The point is this. These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant around the whole Chinese renewables claims. Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.

"Judge electricity by electricity metrics "
Yes I get it. Cherry-pick the subset of data that tells the story you want to hear and pretend that all the other data doesn't exist. Concentrate on the tree with the most flowers and pretend to not notice that the forest is dying.

That’s a strawman, mhaze:

//The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions… China has massively increasing emissions while… US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.//

No one said totals don’t matter. The point is that if you’re judging renewables in the power sector, you use sector metrics: carbon intensity, generation mix, coal utilisation. National totals also include steel, cement and exports, so they can rise even while electricity gets cleaner. Comparing China’s growing economy to US raw totals is misleading.

//Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.//

False dichotomy.

Emissions are the endpoint, but sector metrics are how you track progress toward them. That’s how serious analysis works.

//Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone… China's figures are numbers we have… But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation.//

It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t. If they’re too unreliable when inconvenient, they’re too unreliable when convenient. Using them while discrediting them isn’t “walking and chewing gum,” it’s hedging both ways.

//These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant… Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.//

“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” Either evidence supports “worse,” or it doesn’t. The same data also show wind and solar surging and coal utilisation falling - signs of transition that contradict your narrative.

//That’s cherry-pick the tree with the most flowers and pretend not to notice that the forest is dying.//

Not cherry-picking - just using the right scope. If the claim is about renewables in electricity, judge electricity. If you want economy-wide conclusions, use per-capita, per-GDP, or intensity, not raw totals. A growing “forest” can still have a cleaner “tree.”

Perhaps the bad management of China's compliance of international climate management is just another symptom of the same bad faith ideologically compromised negotiation inherent in the drafting of the climate management plan in the first place. Another form of agiprop by Woke Marxist forces against the US and the West, to form a beachhead and replace them as the lingua franca ideology of the world.

As Machiavelli says Asia has always been much more authoritarian than Europe, and this is still true today. All governments are authoritarian to a point. Small governments sometimes implement extreme measures to control the population, but usually the population can vote with their feet. Large governments controlling large numbers of people can do much harm even with fairly moderate control actions. As Machivelli said Asia had a model firmly centred on the sovereign, whereas Europe's model was distributed through a hierarchy. Sadly in seeking alternative models of government to model the modern age, most turn to Asia without suspecting it's highly authoritarian nature... or maybe they do suspect and just want the power... and through denial and deception and chaos they can get what they want... and maybe Asia in their millenial/ thousand year battle with Europe will win. Irony, nature seems to favour small governments of self sufficient people, breeding stronger people, the ancient germanic people were seen as giants. Some ideologies talk about freeing the slaves while creating them.

Over time bad faith people corrupt even good systems. You can't assume the system controlling bad actors, without active constraint. When the good do nothing...

I see 1. the management of China, and 2. the creation of climate policy, in the above ideological context.

Climate policy was never meant to solve world climate, it was to solve the problem of the west. In a sense a battle between positive and negative freedom, Traditionalism and Marxism, Europe and Asia, between 'rule of law' and dictatorial rule, freedom and slavery, freedom and stability, etc. Some of these dualities are contradictory, but understanding the paired diads it's possible to get a picture of the landscape.

"It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t."

Still misunderstanding I see. I'm not dismissing figures that don't suit. What figures have I dismissed? I'm saying the figures we have before us tell a sad story for those who blindly adhere to the renewables fable and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story. Somehow that seems too hard for you to fathom. But I can't dumb it down any further.

"“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” "

Wow. Just how little do you understand? Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about. If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.

Precisely CM.

I've written about this dichotomy between East and West previously on these pages. The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler. The idea that Pericles would fully understand and appreciate the US Constitution while Sargon the Great would understand Hamas and Han Wudi would concur with Xi.

As to climate policy, it is clear that many in the climate community use AGW merely as a means to an end, the end being the overthrow of western capitalism. eg
Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III in 2010: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

or

Patricia Espinosa, UNFCCC Executive Secretary in 2019: “Free-market capitalism must die if we are to meet the temperature targets. Let us be clear about that.”

That China and Russia fund and use climate groups as a means to weaken western structure is clear. Anyone familiar with how the USSR funded peace groups in the 1960's and 70s as part of their Cold War efforts, would recognise how climate groups are used, often willingly.

That’s hand-waving, mhaze:

//I’m not dismissing figures that don’t suit. What figures have I dismissed?... if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

Yes you are.

You call China’s figures propaganda when they show clean-energy progress — yet cite the same figures as proof renewables “don’t work.” That’s selective trust. Either they’re credible enough to use, or they’re not. You can’t both brand them propaganda and build your case on them.

//The figures we have before us tell a sad story… and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

That’s an assumption dressed up as conclusion. Data should constrain analysis, not act as a springboard for “probably worse” storytelling. If you can only make your point by imagining figures that don’t exist, that’s not analysis — that’s speculation.

//Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about.//

No. Analysis weighs evidence against uncertainty. It doesn’t license you to assume the unknown automatically favours your position. An “educated guess” acknowledges limits; you’re treating limits as confirmation. That’s not analysis, it’s bias.

//If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.//

Wrong again.

Narrative is when you slot facts into a story without testing alternatives. Analysis is when you interrogate data, test competing explanations, and acknowledge uncertainty.

If “analysis” for you means always guessing in the direction of your own claims, that explains a lot.

It seems you also struggle with history, mhaze.

//The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler.//

History doesn’t fit that cartoon.

Athens had slavery and no rights for women, Rome spent centuries as an empire under strongmen, and “the West” itself produced absolute monarchs and fascism. Meanwhile, “the East” includes traditions of pluralism and decentralisation - from Indian republics to Confucian checks on emperors.

Flattening 2,000 years of complexity into “West = liberty, East = tyranny” isn’t history, it’s a caricature.

//Edenhofer: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”//

That’s one of the most cherry-picked lines in the denial playbook.

In context he was pointing out that all international agreements have distributional consequences - who pays, who benefits - not that climate policy is secretly communism.

//Espinosa: “Free-market capitalism must die…”//

Again, stripped of context. She was criticising a deregulated model that ignores climate costs, not calling for the abolition of markets altogether.

If your “evidence” relies on cartoons of history and quotes stripped of context, then it too explains a lot.

"Yes you are."

Oh well, if you say so! Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.

As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.

I don’t just say so, mhaze.

//Oh well, if you say so!//

I show so.

//Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.//

Of course not, that’s why I gave specific examples of you dismissing data as propaganda when it hurts your case, then leaning on the same data when you think it helps. That is selective trust. Simply waving it away with “erroneous misunderstanding” doesn’t make the contradiction vanish, it just shows you don’t want to touch it.

//As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.//

This is the clearest tell yet.

Not a single correction of what I wrote about Athens, Rome, monarchy, pluralism, or Confucian constraints. Not a single counter-source. Just a sneer. You’re hoping that by putting me down you can avoid addressing the fact that your “West = liberty, East = tyranny” narrative was a cartoon version of history.

This is a pattern:

- When your use of statistics is challenged, you fall back on “if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”

- When your selective quoting is exposed, you move on without acknowledgement.

- When your history gets corrected, you retreat into mockery.

It’s pure evasion. You dismiss what you can’t rebut, imagine data that doesn’t exist, and try to cover the gaps with insult.

If the strongest move left in your playbook is hoping people remember the tone of your sneer rather than the emptiness of your argument, then you’ve already conceded the point.

"I gave specific examples of you dismissing data "

What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case? Just asserting I dismissed it doesn't make it so.

"Not a single counter-source. "

Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.

"“if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”"

Still don't get, poor JD. If we had honest figures that make my point even stronger, although even the less accurate figures already prove my point. Not a difficult point I'd suggest, although, it seems, too difficult for JD.

The strategic detachment is a new approach, mhaze.

Let's see if it gets you the win you've been chasing for so long now...

//What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case?//

The Chinese energy stats.

When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda. That’s not me asserting, that’s you switching trust depending on whether the numbers help or hurt. That’s textbook selective dismissal.

//Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.//

I corrected your cartoon history with facts: Athens had slavery, Rome had emperors, “the West” had monarchs and fascists, “the East” had pluralist traditions and checks on rulers. That’s history, not an opinion. You can call it “no source” if you like, but unless you’re claiming Athens didn’t have slaves or Rome wasn’t ruled by emperors, then you’re not disputing - you’re evading.

//…although even the less accurate figures already prove my point.//

They don’t.

They show that China is rapidly expanding renewables alongside coal, which undercuts your “renewables fable” narrative.

That’s why you’ve had to set it up so that the coal numbers are always “real” and renewables are always “propaganda.” And if renewables look big, you just assume the “honest” figures would show even more coal.

If your position can never be wrong by definition, then it can never be right by evidence either.

It’s a shell game and a bad faith manoeuvre.

"When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda."

You're becoming increasing deranged here JD. I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel. And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.

Try again.

Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.

That’s exactly the dodge I called out, mhaze.

//I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel.//

“Probably wrong" and "understated” means you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. That’s treating them as directionally reliable, which is the same thing as taking them as gospel when they suit you.

//And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.//

You didn’t nitpick decimals, but you dismissed the whole picture as a “fable.” That’s not silence, that’s rejection. Coal can only be “real or worse,” renewables can only be “illusory.” That’s the selective trust I pointed out.

//Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.//

This is pure hand-waving.

Unless you’re seriously saying Athens didn’t have slaves, Rome didn’t have emperors, or the West didn’t live under monarchs and fascists, then those aren’t “assertions.” They’re facts.

Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them.

It's not looking like strategic detachment is a winner.

"you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. "

But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e. Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed. What a dill.

"Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them."

You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.

Athens etc....
I've had this argument so many times over the years with dills who think that pointing out Athens had slaves is a killer blow. So I really don't want to get too far down that rabbit hole again.

Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact. Maybe as many as one-third of the population around 431BC were slaves. So yes, slaves. As did every other nation, city, polity and group on the planet at the time. And not just at that time but throughout all recorded history and probably before then, right up to the recent age of western dominance. Athens showed the world a society where every citizen was sacrosanct and had rights, even though not all inhabitants were citizens. And Rome and the west inherited that and built on it.

And yes, Rome had emperors and slaves. And yes, Middle Ages Europe had feudalism and born to rule kings. All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.

Because while Athens and Rome and the Holy Roman Empire were flawed (and I look forward to you telling which society wasn't flawed) they were also the protectors of the gifts of western thought.

Ask why democracy is a western concept that only ever occurred organically in the west. Why human rights arose in the west. Why women's rights arose in the west. The Magna Carta. The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west. These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity and while they were suppressed for large periods of time, they were still at the essence of the west.

We've had the discussion in these pages before, that the victory of the Athenians on the plains of Marathon, 2514 years ago both started and saved western culture.

Many people don't like western culture and think they are very sophisticated to deride it, while still living off its fruits. I'm not one of those.

You did lean on coal as the reason for those emissions, mhaze.

//But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e.//

Pretending now that it was “only CO2e” is just a rebrand so you can call me a dill. It’s hair-splitting to avoid the point: coal stats were your evidence until they weren’t.

//You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.//

And now you’ve conceded Athens had slaves, Rome had emperors, medieval Europe had kings. So the “no source” routine wasn’t about evidence at all - it was a stall until you could retreat into narrative.

//Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact... And yes ... All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.//

You admit every fact and then declare them irrelevant. Every contradiction becomes destiny. Slavery, emperors, feudalism, fascism - they don’t count, because in your telling they were just “temporary setbacks” on the road to freedom?

//Ask why democracy is a western concept... Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west... These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity...//

This is mere canonisation. You’re not asking questions, you’re writing scripture: Marathon “saved Western culture,” slavery somehow proves the “gift of freedom,” every dark chapter is recast as evidence of virtue.

This is the shell game again: never wrong, because you can always rewrite the evidence as part of the myth - which is why your arguments collapse into mythology instead of history.

//Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed.//

Well, that prediction didn’t age well. Probably because there's no precedent.

But it's certainly a good example of textbook projection.

"coal stats were your evidence "

I didn't mention coal stats. Just making it up.
As I said..."now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end".

Your becoming toooo predictable.

Not “making it up,” mhaze.

//I didn't mention coal stats. Just making it up.//

You leaned on coal as the reason for the emissions. That’s why you’re now hair-splitting between “coal” and “CO2e.”

//As I said..."now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end".//

And here’s the script again: redefine the terms, call my clarification “defensiveness,” then declare your prophecy fulfilled. That’s not foresight, that’s a self-sealing trick.

…speaking of predictability.

//Your becoming toooo predictable.//

If “predictable” means catching you every time you swap definitions to stay “never wrong,” then yes - I’ll keep being predictable.

Better predictable than permanently evasive.

Yes, JD, just pure fabrication. I've never mentioned coal statistics. Never once. Frankly I'd need to research it to find out what they are and how reliable they are.

"That’s why you’re now hair-splitting between “coal” and “CO2e.”

Hairspliting. You carry on as though they are interchangeable data. All in your futile effort to try to hide your original error. I've never understood the mindset that prefers playing the clown to admitting error.

What we have here, if we go back to the beginning, is me providing statistics that showed that (1) JD's claims about China's environmental credentials were pure fantasy and (2) that renewables don't lead to reduced emissions. Since both of those are anathema to JD's worldview, he's been struggling ever since to find a way to deny the nose on his face.

That the only way he can do it is by misrepresenting what was said, we can see the quality of his opinion.

And even though he keeps claiming I relied on coal statistics, we can't help but notice that he can't back up that absurdity with a quote.

Not fabrication, mhaze.

You invoked coal as the driver of China’s emissions. That’s the link you leaned on. Whether you called it a “statistic” or “CO2e” is beside the point - it’s the evidentiary crutch you used until it got inconvenient.

//And even though he keeps claiming I relied on coal statistics, we can't help but notice that he can't back up that absurdity with a quote.//

Cute move: insist on the magic word “statistics” while ignoring that you did exactly what I said - pointed to coal to explain the emissions. If you want to pretend the difference between “coal share of energy” and “emissions from coal” absolves you, fine.

But that’s hair-splitting, not a rebuttal.

And the rest is just set dressing - “fantasy,” “clown,” “struggling.” That’s the performance. Strip the performance away, and all you’ve really said is: coal proves China’s emissions are bad, but when I call that selective, suddenly it was never about coal at all.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371593

Thanks mhaze for your comments, it's good to know that you see things similarly. It's good when your own independent analysis is convergent with others that you respect. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

Thanks for the quotes and for the later very lucid comments (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371622).

Comment- John Daysh said "Flattening 2,000 years of complexity into “West = liberty, East = tyranny” isn’t history, it’s a caricature."

Answer- If you believe that one thing leads to another, and you haven't got the first, then you haven't got the second. Joseph Nye apparently puts the success of western society down to a handful of principles, including openness where appropriate. Machiavelli (1469-1527) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli) made the observation that Asian political model's were superior because they were more dictatorial, but then came the Reformation, the Renaisance, and the Enlightenment. It isn't me saying that Asia is dictatorial it's Machiavelli- doesn't mean it's not a caricature, but Daysh needs to do more than just say "It's a caricature!", at least to convince me over the lucid arguments that Machiavelli makes. There are a number of other principles from Asia, that seem to have conspired to tyranny. I believe that Asia would do well to adopt the home grown principles of Confucius (not the Confucius Institute), that was attacked in Asia, and some Asian countries, such as South Korea have, to their great success.

There are commentators that have talked about the failure of introducing western success principles and institutions to Asia.

Zealots preach before they teach... Listening to idiots can make you dumber.

I was thinking that Japan also seems to have a feeling of Confucianism and it turns out luckily to be correct as below...

From Search Assist AI-

Relationship Between Shinto and Confucianism
Overview of Shinto

Shinto is Japan's indigenous religion, focusing on kami (spirits) found in nature.
It emphasizes rituals and practices that connect people with these spirits.

Influence of Confucianism on Shinto

Confucianism began influencing Shinto during the Edo period (1603–1868).
Scholars like Yamazaki Ansai integrated Confucian ethics, such as filial piety and moral behavior, into Shinto beliefs.
This blend is known as Confucian Shinto or Juka Shintō.

Key Features of Confucian Shinto

It emphasizes ethical behavior and family values.
Popular among the samurai class, it helped reconcile their duties to the emperor with Confucian ideals.
Confucian Shinto also played a role in shaping modern Japanese nationalism and values during the Meiji Restoration.

Modern Developments

Contemporary groups influenced by Confucian Shinto include Shinto Taiseikyo and Shinto Shusei.
These organizations continue to reflect the integration of Confucian principles within Shinto practices.

In summary, while Shinto and Confucianism are distinct traditions, Confucianism has significantly influenced Shinto, particularly in ethical and social aspects.

It's been said that the three philosophical traditions of China's Middle Kingdom are Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism. Therefore to understand the mindset of China, and perhaps wider Asia, and how to create peace with Europe, it might be helpful to understand something about these traditions, and the fundamental assumptions of Asia.

CM,

I find Japan to be a fascinating case study in the mechanisms of ancestral memory. Its my view that peoples inherit their most basic political instincts from an early age. There is no overt attempt to instil democratic instincts or authoritarian instincts into the populace,. Yet over the generations it becomes the accepted norm.

I'm most familiar with the Russians, particularly around the time of the fall of the USSR and the eventual rise of Putin. Initially there was fervour around the idea of creating a democracy, but as, inevitably, hard times struck, the instinct and inherent impulses of the Russians was to look for a father and leader who would save them from the messiness of democracy. Enter Putin. Most Russians I'm still in contact with today are aware of their relative lack of freedom as compared with the west but see that as the price to pay for the stability of the Kremlin's somewhat benign authoritarianism.

Japan, similarly, had a tradition of central rule and lack of personal freedoms. Emperor worship was one aspect of that, as well as reverence for the warrior classes. Yet today, that ancestorial memory is all but eliminated.

When Japan was defeated in 1945, it wasn't just a military defeat. The entire society was rendered asunder, back to first principles. Suddenly the warrior class was utterly humiliated. The Emperor was no long aloof and unknowable and infallible. And the women, so long just adjuncts to their men, were now bread winners and vital to the workings of society. (One of my many books on the Beatles points out that a Yoko Ono figure was only possible because of 1945). And then democracy and western notions of personal freedom were overlayed and became the new norm for a society that no longer had norms.

Japan is now a firm and devoted democracy, recognising western values of the individual and personal freedom. A 1925 Japanese would be thoroughly confused by a 2025 Japanese whereas a 1925 Russian would entirely understand the political views of a 2025 Putin-phile.

Anyone who thinks that talking about emission levels is the exact equivalent of talking about "coal statistics" really doesn't deserve my attention.

Anyone whose so dishonest and so determined to not acknowledge error as to continue to claim they were right to make that equivalency won't get my attention.

Canem Malum and mhaze,

This is exactly what I meant by caricature. “Asia = tyranny, West = liberty” dressed up in Machiavelli quotes and “ancestral instincts” isn’t history, it’s essentialism.

- Machiavelli had scraps of second-hand info, not a framework for all of Asia.

- Japan didn’t suddenly discover democracy because its “ancestral memory was erased in 1945” - it had a democratic tradition in the Taisho era.

- And Russians didn’t “inherit” authoritarian instincts. They had weak institutions, massive shocks, and elites who benefited from re-centralisation. That’s politics, not genetics.

Flattening 2,000 years of social and political change into “East likes strongmen, West likes freedom” isn’t lucid analysis. It’s the very caricature I was pointing out.

mhaze,

Not “exact equivalent” - linked. You leaned on coal to explain emissions, and now you’re pretending it’s irrelevant because I didn’t recite the word statistics back at you.

That’s the pattern: evidence when it suits, disown it when pressed, then declare victory because the wording wasn’t precise enough.

And as for “not giving me your attention”… well, you just did.